Page tags

Add a new page

Mission of this group

Document successful non-violent struggles from the past.

Identify principles (guidelines).

Design a resistance plan based on those guidelines adapted to the specificities of the Palestinian struggle (Zionist propaganda, American support) and of our time (internet, celular phones, cheap pocket cameras, etc.). Focus on the principles and let the creativity flow!

Summary of ideas

It is on the interest of the Palestinians to use non-violent resistance to fight the oppression of Israeli forces.

We claim both that:

Non-violent resistance can be very effective.

Other types of resistance are at best ineffective and often counter-productive.

The guidelines of non-violent action can be found in the documents describing the struggle of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and South Africans.

Concerning the goals of non-violent action

The first goal is to break the moral engine supporting the Israeli expansionist and oppressive actions.

As consequence, the Palestinians and Israelis will be able to live together in the historical Palestine (whether in a single and in two states, federation, whatever, cohabitation is the solution, not the problem, and we often forget that 20% of Israelis are Palestinians…).

If the goal is attained, we believe that everyone would benefit from it.

Palestinians: No more oppression, exclusion, possibility to come back to the land they were expelled from.

Israelis: End of fascist sickness that has taken most of their society since at least 1948 (aggressors also suffer, and not only from qassams!). Yes, it is possible to live with Palestinian side-by-side, Israelis will see how much better it is to live that way with a few less empty land than with having to expropriate, exclude, expell, destroy, kill, lie.

The rest of the world: Very likely no more Afganistan war, Iraq war, Bin Ladens, self-fulfilling civilisation crash prophecies, BHL and the Pope saying bullshit…:-)

Document what non-violence is NOT and answer to criticism

If we say yes, answer to the question "Why can't we be violent if the are?"

If we say no, answer to the question "Are you saying that you support terrorism?".

Draft list of what non-violent action is not:

Non-violent action is not simply a moral imperative. It's above all a tactic chosen because of its power and effectiveness.

Non-violent action is not simply refraining to use violence. It much, much more than that. It is an intensive use of a lot of well-thought connected actions.

Non-violent action is not crossing the arms. It is doing something every day, all the time. Non-violent action is more about action than about not being violent.

Non-violent action is not wait-and-see. It is actually much more intense than violence, since it can be done by every person on every time.

Non-violent action does not depend on the non-violence from the opponent. Violence of the opponent is to be expected and actually to be welcome. It is part of the plan. It can be intense but shouldn't last very long. Martin Luther King's autobiography is a good source on that topic.

Non-violent action is not believing in diplomacy. Martin Luther King did not believe. Action first, diplomacy later.

Non-violent action is not what Abu Mazen does. Absolutely not.

Non-violent action is not an act of cowardice. Often you actually need more courage for non-violent action than for violence.

Non-violent action is not a tool to be combined with others. If your action is not 100% non-violent it is probably a waste of energy.

Non-violent action is not only to be used in Occupied Territories. Palestinians, supporters, human right activists in the whole world can do a lot.

Non-violent action is not about throwing stones. Much more effective alternatives exist, and throwing stones breaks the power of the message of the non-violent action. Once the people understand the logic behind it and get busy with it, they will not feel the need to throw stones anymore.

Non-violent action is not about condemning groups that use violent methods. Some of their actions/positions are certainly morally condemnable, but condemning them is useless and counter-productive. The best way to make proponents of violent methods change is to develop a non-violent struggle, show the results, and stay open to anyone willing to adhere.

Non-violent action is not about delegating street actions to the population while staying in offices discussing with diplomats. Non-violent action can hardly exist without a well-respected leader and that person has to be on the streets. As Martin Luther King says the main element is "dramatising". The leader must be seen inside it.